Forgotten Memo Shows Gun-grabbing Built into FBI’s DNA

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store” is an old meme gun owners use to express the more serious concern that Constitutional authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is non-existent. “Boot the BATFE!” was a campaign the late Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership started to argue that point, and to call for the elimination of the agency tasked with taking point on most of those infringements.

Recognizing that waste, abuse, corruption and fraud are so deeply ingrained in the Bureau’s management that rooting them out is an effective impossibility, we’ve seen legislative “solutions” offered, the last being Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner’s proposed “ATF Elimination Act:”

“This bill abolishes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). It transfers the ATF's authorities, functions, personnel, and assets to the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

I argued against that in “The Devil You Know” for one of my GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” columns. As offensive to liberty as ATF has been, the DOJ, FBI and DEA have been as bad and worse. Besides, transferring functions does nothing about the usurpation of undelegated authority that makes Zelman’s solution – elimination – the only acceptable one. Admittedly, it’s one that none of our “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment” in Congress have the guts to even broach, let alone make the case and fight for.

As for the FBI, the Bureau has been wary of armed citizens from its inception, and the attitude of its first director set a tone that remains an influence to this day.

“FBI director J. Edgar Hoover received the first .357 Mag. on April 8, 1935,” a 2010 “American Rifleman” article on the history of the caliber informed National Rifle Association members. “Sales of the new .357 Mag. started very strong and continuously increased. “

That the Hoover .357 is a Holy Grail of sorts, something researchers and collectors of historical firearms have been diligently searching for, is hardly surprising. Perhaps more of a revelation for those of us who aren't collectors, but are more interested in propriety of official actions, is that Hoover gave a Super .38 handgun taken from the Dillinger gang to a “New York movie lawyer.” Questions such as who “owned” confiscated evidence and if the Sullivan Act was complied with will probably be as difficult to find answers for as the director’s elusive #1, but they do lead to a question we can answer: How did he feel about American citizens possessing subsequent production models of the handgun presented to him?

Hoover didn't like the idea one bit, and in typical elitist “Only Ones” fashion did what he could to encourage banning “highly-powered firearms.” That’s the gist of a letter from Hoover to Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings dated March 19, 1936.

An industry insider provided me with a copy of the letter that had watermarks forbidding publication of the document. A call and correspondence with the University of Virginia's Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library resulted in a clean scan and acknowledgement that posting it is consistent with publication guidelines. For research purposes, per the library reference coordinator, it is housed in the Papers of Homer S. Cummings, MSS 9973, Box 103, Folder “Attorney General Personal File – Firearms and National Firearms Act 1935 May-1938 September.”

Expressing concerns over “the velocity and penetrative ability of firearms and their ammunition,” Hoover noted “a competitive race” to develop the highest velocity cartridge possible.” These advances, he warned, would render “hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment now in use by law enforcement agencies useless and obsolete.

“[T]hese developments will eventually be of much greater assistance to the criminal element than to the law enforcement agencies or to the law abiding citizens,” Hoover predicted.

“It is not believed that members of the various shooting clubs and organizations would concern themselves over a curtailment of highly-powered firearms,” Hoover opined, probably not altogether incorrectly considering the indifference of many who to this day still place sporting interests over rights. “Additional penetration is of no value to target shooting, and it is logical to assume that organizations promoting this sport would be in hearty accord with legislation curtailing high velocity bullets in an attempt to insure their members the continued use of target pistols.”

Noting the “menacing developments of these guns,” Hoover recommended “permanently control[ling] … rapid advances” and offered technical assistance from the Bureau to come up with limitations on “breech pressure and velocity.

“May I respectfully suggest that you consider referring these facts to the appropriate House Committee for such legislative action as may be deemed advisable,” he concluded.

So the Second Amendment is about target shooting? And here all this time we’ve been told it’s about deer hunting.

Arrogant, presumptuous and powerful FBI leadership did not acknowledge “shall not be infringed” then and they don’t acknowledge it now. The more things change the more they stay the same.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

Don Cline: Your anecdotal story regarding a police officer being shot while approaching a vehicle is irrelevant to police officers disarming law abiding citizens. Let’s suppose you’re an off duty officer and get stopped for speeding, should the officer who stops you disarm you also? Why not, because, you belong to a special club that carries a badge? There are three police officers arrested, on average, every single day of the year, for crimes. Using your logic, for citizens, why NOT disarm off duty police officers stopped for traffic offenses on the chance they may be doing something else?

As for your other comments, ridiculous. We have a presumption of innocence in this country and disarming law abiding citizens not only violates that presumption it says, as a police officer, I don’t trust citizens with guns. And you wonder why there is a separation between police and citizens, and the police have been sarcastically labeled the “only ones”?

If your family has had this influence on you they are part of the problem. We’ve worked for years to educate officers that armed citizens are NOT a problem for them and should not be treated as such. We’ve worked to change department’s policy to reflect that and teach officers that, absent anything else that would indicate a threat to them, they are not to routinely disarm citizens on traffic stops. It takes longer, is unsafe, does nothing to ensure their safety and absolutely ruins trust between police and citizens. Your attitude is one of decades ago, before almost every single State started issuing permits to carry and long before there there were more than 16 million permits issued.

I’m pretty sure the officer in my anecdote who was shot does not consider it irrelevant. And you seem to have adopted the position that I support the disarming of citizens by officers. I don’t, particularly; however, he is armed too: If he sees me reaching for my wallet, located just below my holster, he is perfectly justified in putting a bullet in me. I believe my actions in advising him I am armed and allowing him to govern my actions is the prudent thing to do, don’t you? Or do you think my right to keep and bear arms is so important during that law enforcement contact situation that I should take a bullet for it, or, worse, do you think I should have made the officer take a bullet for it? If that is what you think, you are insane: We are not yet operating under the rules of war.

Let’s suppose you’re an off duty officer and get stopped for speeding, should the officer who stops you disarm you also?” I am not an off-duty officer, and it is not for me to say. That is up to the officers involved. I will suggest, however, that it seems likely an off-duty officer being stopped by another officer whom he does not know, would cooperate exactly as I did and for the same reasons: As an off-duty officer, he knows what an officer potentially faces every time he makes a traffic stop, and will cooperate for that reason. Even if he shows his ID/Badge, if the stopping officer wants to disarm him, it would be prudent to allow him to do so absent any indication of hostile intent. The side of the road is not the place to settle that kind of issue.

“We have a presumption of innocence in this country and disarming law abiding citizens not only violates that presumption it says, as a police officer, I don’t trust citizens with guns.” Two problems, there: First, the presumption of innocence is not violated by temporarily, for the duration of a traffic stop, asking a citizen to disarm in the interests of the safety of everyone involved. The presumption of innocence would be violated if the officer made an arrest based solely on the fact that the arrestee was armed. Secondly, we are not talking about an officer and a non-officer passing each other on the street where the non-officer is armed. The ‘I don’t trust citizens with guns’ attitude is relevant only if the officer takes an action in a non-officer-contact situation. The traffic stop is a law enforcement action based upon observed illegal actions of the citizen. The officer is in charge during that contact, and the citizen is detained during that contact. The citizen is required to submit to the lawful directives of the officer during that contact. (Note the word “lawful” in that requirement. It would be prudent for the citizen to submit, albeit under verbal non-abusive protest, even if the commands are unlawful: The side of the road is not the place to argue the fine points of the law.) It is absolutely insane to claim that a law enforcement officer should be required to face any number of strangers in what many would consider a hostile contact, and trust, without a shred of evidence, that none of them will pitch a fit and go kinetic.

“If your family has had this influence on you they are part of the problem.” To the contrary; my family has not had influence on me; rather, I have had influence on them. They are aware, for example, that I respect their right to officer safety in a traffic stop, and they are aware that I vehemently oppose their department-mandated rule that every time they come across a firearm they have to run the serial number. The fact that I am armed is not probable cause of criminal conduct and does not justify an “investigation.”

“We’ve worked for years to educate officers that armed citizens are NOT a problem for them and should not be treated as such.” Interesting that you should make that claim while objecting to my actions in the referenced anecdote that goes to prove the truth of that claim to a law enforcement officer. Frankly, given the number of hot-headed doofuses out there who object to any imposition of authority on them by law enforcement officers, I would never advise a law enforcement officer to assume an armed citizen in a law enforcement contact situation is always benevolent. If you want an officer to respect your rights, you first have to respect his life.

Don: This has become a tome. That said your last response is exactly the reason we have an “only ones” attitude by some police today. I’ll address just two parts and then I’m finished. I’ve been pulled over a couple of times. I have my wallet out before the officer ever gets out of his car and unless it a “must inform” State I never inform the officer that I’m armed, it’s not relevant to the issue at hand which is a traffic stop. He may see it pop up on his screen when and if he runs my license but otherwise I take the attitude of don’t ask, don’t tell.

Don’t tell me about respecting anybody’s Rights or life, period. I’ve had one partner and two other people I worked with murdered on the job. I have more experience with armed criminals AND law abiding citizens armed and unarmed than you’ll ever have and I’ll say this for the last time, law abiding citizens are not the problem and depriving them of their Rights for even one second so you can, without just cause, think you have a false sense of security is WRONG. Have a nice evening.

“Don: This has become a tome.” I’m only responding to people, like you, who don’t think police officers deserve any respect. And I don’t know about any “only ones” attitude by police today — we don’t have that problem here.

“I have my wallet out before the officer ever gets out of his car and unless it a “must inform” State I never inform the officer that I’m armed,” I’d rather not have the officer see me trying to dig something out of my pocket (holster?) before he gets to my window, and I would rather he hear me say “Just FYI, I’m armed, but I’m legal” than have him notice it if for some reason he asks me to step out of the car — because he will be looking for tells.

Sincerely sorry for your loss, and I will agree wholeheartedly that law-abiding citizens are not the problem. But I prefer making it clear to the officer that I am a law-abiding citizen; I can think of no rational reason why he should assume it. Assuming it can make him dead sooner or later.

“…depriving them of their Rights for even one second so you can, without just cause, think you have a false sense of security is WRONG.” The officer did not deprive me of my Rights for even one second, and I made it clear I was not going to deprive him of his. No harm, no foul. I really think you are wrapped a little too tight for this issue, but just as I believe the officer has the right to determine what circumstances are safe for him in a traffic stop, you have the right to do the same. If you wish to assume every citizen you encounter is a Saint, good luck. I hope you are right, but I fear sooner or later you will find that you are not. My actions convinced the officer I intend him no ill will, and that’s a good thing. If you don’t, that’s your choice.

@ charles gore “George Washington did not even consider the need for an ATF ”

Correct,as he inline with the other founders put in place the Bill Of Rights and namely in the case of arms,which expressly prohibits the government from any Infringement. Any of the alphabet agencies are extra Constitutional and thus not within the Constitution,next Tyrant.

Not entirely correct, except as it pertains to firearms. The “Elastic Clause,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, authorizes Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” In my opinion the “Elastic” has been stretched beyond the breaking point in many cases, but there it is: You can make of it what you will, because government certainly has.

“Don are you the Rabble Rouser from FreedomFIghter.net?” The simplest and least informative answer is “no.” That site is for sale, and mine is not for sale. That site is someone trying to scam on the reputation of my site. If you are interested, have a look at http://www.frdmftr.net. It is amusing that you ask if I am the ‘Rabble Rouser,’ because I don’t think my site uses the term ‘Rabble Rouser’ — but I do use it on my business card. 🙂

The Constitution is what we use to codify what we demand of/by/for/and from each other under The Declaration of Independence which cannot be amended and a new one can only be written at great peril. The 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence ensures that the 2nd Amendment demands civilian PARITY of arms with our government. And it’s not our fault what that parity requires.

My Rights trump law enforcements vests or shields. Aren’t we all equal under law? I wonder if George Washington’s ATF would approve the Desert Eagle 50 AE? When are we getting the freedom of religion or freedom of thought agency?

George Washington did not even consider the need for an ATF and certainly a Desert Eagle as you can’t equate a weapon of the year of 2000 to a flintlock in 1776. The 2nd ammendement does not site or classify weapons of 2018.

If Washington was here he would say, “Look you stupid ass morons, We meant the weapons of the day and today they are different than then. By that premise those not in the military should have been using knives. My gosh what would have happened if someone invented a semi-auto muzzle loader? Would he had made that illegal? Washington would have allowed our citizenry to carry any weapon the military carries now. Guns in and of themselves cannot nor ever will be illegal. They are made legally it is the possession of those that are prohibited from owning them are illegal. A gun can never perform a crime. It takes a person. Let’s bolster our mental health agencies and get more back from our teachers about what kids say. Let’s stop waiting until people actually commit a crime before we are all like chicken little wanting to ban something. ANYONE CAN BUY ANYTHING on the dark web. Get the Tor browser and a secure VPN and you are all set. OH yeah, set up a bitcoin account. They don’t deal in cash or take plastic. Charles not quite sure where you stand when I read your post. You are right the 2nd amendment does classify weapons as it didn’t classify weapons from 1776.

There WAS one in the time of our fight to kick Georgie Boy Three off North American soil.

Can’t recall the name of it, but it did exist. Quite dear, slow in production, so there were few of them. Imagine if funds were available, someone could have set up a factory and cranked them out.

It was a long gun, not a muzzle loader as I understand it, but the ball went into a sort of “cartridge box” and fed them into the chamber one by one as the previous round was fired. It was powered by compressed air, and came with a hand pump. Not sure the pressure. But, it WOULD fire all forty ball before having to repump, and fire them at a rate of several per minute, a nightmare-rate in that day. The best of the Redcoats needed at least two full minutes to reload their long guns, which is why they advanced in flanks, dropped to their knee and fired, the next stepping up between them as they struggled to the rear to reload. We Yanks could quite easily reload in well under a minute, and thus were far more effective. But imagine a weapon that would fire forty rounds, one after the last, several per minute, with good range and accuracy. One of those was roughly the equivalent of bringing an M 16 fully automatic battle rifle to a civilian skirmish featuring the AR 15 and AK 47 semiauto.

So don’t try and convince ME the ones who wrote out that pesky Second Article of Ammendment were completely unaware of the possible future deveopments in arms technology. They had SEEN that forty rounder sami auto, or at least had neard about it.

Those who wrote expansively on that Second Article always mentioined that their intent was that the normal guy on the street, citizen of his village or town, would be guaranteed ownership of any weapon the ,ilitary of the dayt might also own. The clear intent was not for hunting, target shooting, sport, busting rocks or tin cans, collecting, …… perhaps partly to ward off marauding indians or pirates, but mainly and principally as a force anyone contemplating tyranny or overthrow of legitmiate government would take pause, knowing their opponents would be armed, potentially, at least as well as THEY were armed.

So the framers simply placed the burden for “the security of a free state” squarely upon the shoulders of……THE PEOPLE< which is why that Article of Ammendment simply states THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear..and you all know the rest (if you don't, wjy are you even ON here?) WE the PEOPLE should have no more rstrictions as to what arms we own/carry/use than do military. Or the President's protective details.

“Let’s stop waiting until people actually commit a crime before we are all like chicken little wanting to ban something.” I have a better idea, one consistent with the liberties under the rule of law our nation was founded to preserve and protect: Let’s prosecute people for what they do, not for what they think. And let’s remember, the right to keep and bear arms includes all the arms carried by the typical well-equipped infantryman, including hand grenades but not including poison gas. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.).

Don, apparently you are not that swift to pick up the ball busting. They FBI tends to treat local law enforcement like a pesky gnat and looks down on them. They think they are above everyone else. It was a joke and if you couldn;t see that you are dumber than a shovel.

@cg, The founding fathers were not required to write any part of the Constitution in an over simplified way that some later individual would approve of. It is up to later generations to learn and understand the founders.

The Constitution also prohibits expressly anything resembling royalty, class structure, caste, etc. If I cannot have a .357 Mag, neither can J Edgar have one. Simple.

Interesing, as well, something I never thought about much until the ascension of the recent kinyun, that there is ONE Fed agency that was created/modified to control/regulate three classes of goods; Not one of those types of goods, nor the regulation/control of any of them, is mentioned within our Constitution in relation to FedGov, except one of them IS certainly mentioned, and FedGov (as well as all other levels of government) are striclty charged to NOT INFRINGE upon our right to free use of that one class of goods.. firearms.

As to rendering any level of control or regulation over those three classes of good, the Constitituion is as mute as the stone walkways outside the Supreme COurt. There is NOT ONE WORD in the Constituion assigning any authority over alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, to FedGov, thus they have NONE. Further, ALL levels of government are straitly charged with seeing to it that our RIGHT to arms is never infringned in any way.

And here we have Hoover and successors/assigns clearly scheming on how to infringe upon our god-given right to arms.

Abolish BATF, and E as well. I work with a fireworks professiona, we use the “big ones” for shows on 4th July.. BATFE have their dog and pony show every year on the “E” part of their name. It does NOTHING at all but add cost and time to our work. Every year the county or city fire marshall comes round, has a squiz at our show, chats with the Push a bit, signs the city permit paper, gams some more, then goes off to make sure the show on the other nearby lake won’t blow up the whole city.. they’ve a reputation for being careless, and have had “incidents”. We… letter perfect record twelve years running. Who NEEDS the Feds? They need us to “justify their existence”. I say it is NOT justified, so butt outt. I’ve read of far too many egregious cases of persecution targetting innocent family folk, carried forward by BATF. They also have the framework for creating a pretty exhaustive national gun registry, and some say they’ve already started it. Nip this one in the bud before its too late. Burn all those “Record Books” now being saved for twenty years. Instead of BATF agents comeoing round, simply require each FFL to keep the records as current, and when a “crime gun” is needing traced to find out who bought it new twenty years ago, let the FFL figure it out. How many guns have we traced that were F & F guns, leading to a dead end trail because Holder and Kinyun fed them into Mexico?

The alleged authority to regulate firearms arises from the Interstate Commerce clause, but it is well to remember a fundamental principle of jurisprudence: “later law controls earlier law”. The I/C clause appears in Article I section 8. If that wording ever granted Congress power to legislate on the topic of firearms, it was revoked by the (later) Second Amendment.

The BATF was not established to “regulate” Alcohol, Tobacco, or Firearms.” It was established to collect taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. With regard to Firearms, of course, taxation is prohibited as an infringement of the right. And btw: The federal government has no Constitutionally-delegated authority to even license firearm dealers.

One midnight I pulled over an SUV. There were two men and two women in the vehicle. A male was driving and when I went up to the window he said with ID in hand, We were out with our wives tonight. I couldn’t resist it, I said license and registration please. I got the dirtiest look, naturally, and he started getting out his license. But have respect for the badge, even though they may not, I said yeah, I’m just busting your balls, have a good night.

Exactly! Respect is earned. Whether it is an individual or an institution, respect is earned. The trouble is that those who are generally promoted to top positions are those who are somebody’s lackey. My problem was that I swore an oath to the Constitution, not an individual or a corrupt institution. Thankfully my parents, both children of Nebraska ranchers and my father a WW2 Pacific Naval veteran and twenty year Air Force veteran, instilled a strong sense of right and wrong in me. It was sometimes hard; but, after 25 years I had the respect of all, even those who opposed me. I have passed that way of life along to my two sons and it is being passed along to my three grandsons.

I hope you weren’t telling me to respect the badge. I never wrote another brother officer, correction officer or a member of the military. If you were referring to me not respecting the badge then you can kiss my ass.

I’m not sure what you are saying, Carlo. In your first message above, what was the point? What was wrong with the guy handing you his ID and saying “We were out with our wives tonight.”? And what does that have to do with him giving you a dirty look for asking for his license and registration? And then you take umbrage with someone you think is telling YOU to respect the badge, and you reveal a total disrespect for the badge by saying, essentially, that you gave your fellow officers a pass when they broke the law. That is not respect for the badge, Carlo; that is corrupt.

Just like doctors give breaks to others in the medical profession. Is that corrupt? I gave a professional courtesy. I don’t know where your head is at but I was neither corrupt or disrespected anyone’s badge. Guess you don’t get cop humor but then again I bet I could hear a sucking sound when you finally pull your head out of your ass! IF I go by your statement then all cops are corrupt, right? What a douche!

Yes, Carlo; an officer pulling over a vehicle for breaking a traffic law and then giving him a pass for simply being a fellow officer, is corrupt. Would you do the same for a burglary suspect or rape suspect who turned out to be carrying a badge? Your answer reminds me of the young woman who was asked by her formal dinner date if she would sleep with a man for a million pounds Sterling. She said, coquettishly, “Maybe.” Then she was asked if she would sleep with a man for five pounds. Angrily she replied, “Of course not! What do you take me for?” George Bernard Shaw replied, “Milady, we have already determined that. Now we are haggling over the price.” Remember, Carlo: The Mafia has “professional courtesy” too.

Don, What you have just said then all cops are corrupt because they all let brother officers slide. Now with that in mind if a give Don Cline a break and tell him to slow down am I breaking the law? Or a black does that make me racist? What you do not know is that officers have discretion to arrest or not arrest. It is totally their call, not yours, not my bosses surely not you or some law book.The next time you chose to speak about cops giving breaks to other cops just remember they have that right and for you and any other person that wants to be a cry baby and say that cops are unfair. And you are out of your mind when you compare me and my brother officers to the Mafia. You’ll get and order you can’t refuse.

No, not all cops are corrupt because not all cops allow fellow officers to “slide.” If they don’t give them a citation, they advise their internal affairs or their sergeant or their watch commander. If that seems too much like “tattling,” they issue a warning that goes on the record. I was stopped once for doing 80-mph on a divided highway by an Arizona Dept. of Public Safety Trooper, and he said “do you know why I stopped you?” And I said, “Probably because I was doing 80-mph.” He blinked, startled, and asked for my license and registration. I replied, without moving my hands which were in clear view, “I will be happy to; however, my license is located just below my pistol, so how would you like to handle this?” He said, “Okay, would you mind if I took custody of it for the duration of our meeting?” I said no, because I trust the DPS out here, so he came around to my side of the car; I got out, keeping my hands on the windowsill; he took the weapon, said he would be right back, and he was, and gave me a written warning for doing 72 in a 65 zone. Then he returned my pistol to me, with the magazine and the extra round for the chamber separate, thanked me for my cooperation, and left. That was not corrupt, because that meant I was on record, and if I got stopped anywhere in Arizona again that would pop up and a citation would be mandatory. Needless to say, I now use the cruise control religiously.

Do your job right and you might get a reputation as a hard-ass, but your would be honoring your commission and encouraging other officers to do the same instead of developing a Mafia-like Code of Silence and thinking they are above the law.

Don Cline: I’m not going to get into the whole issue of whether you let fellow officers slide on minor traffic stuff. HOWEVER, I sure am going to take you to task for your apparent attitude of “sure, it’s just fine if I’m disarmed on a traffic stop”. NO, it’s not just fine and I would have said so right then and there. It’s a dangerous move for the officer and the citizen. It’s unnecessary handling of a firearm, first and foremost. Second, that officer stopped you for speeding nothing more. He has absolutely no reason or RAS to disarm you and this crap about “officer safety” is just that, crap. No police officer is familiar with every firearm made or how they operate. Some of them are barely competent operating their own let alone “sliding across a seat” and disarming you. You need to really rethink your whole attitude on this.

Don, Cops do have discretion on traffic stops. To equate a violation and a felony burglary in the same sentence is insane. Warning tickets do not go on your record and are the same as a warning. I take it from your statements you are not a cop and you have no idea what they can or cannot do. Internal affairs would laugh a cop out of their offices if an officer came in and said Officer Don let three people go today. He is corrupt. Don, know the law before you speak. IF you go by your standard of what cops can and cannot do the Arizona cop is corrupt because he did not write you for the correct speed. He let you slide. Getting pulled over for 72 in a 65 is chicken shit anyway. I wrote more tickets in my department than anyone else and always gave at least 12 over before I pulled anyone over. But I suppose you think that is corrupt but again it is up to our discretion not to some mythical fantasy you have about police procedures.

Your value set is more than a bit skewed. WHY are all those “swarms of officers’ out and about anyway?WHAT is theirfunction in society?

Ifyou answer ‘enforce the law’ ‘ you would be wrong. God established the civil magisgrate to “bear the sword against those who do harm”. There is absolutely NO precedent for today’s “law enforcement officers”. They are a holdover from the days of the tyrannical and selfish king who “did not appreciate” his peasants taking “his” deer on “his’ land. I will grant that if the harts were cattle he had purchased and managed as a source of income, he MIGHT have a point, as that would be stealing, and he would be “harmed”.

But tell me WHO is harmed when I am driving at 80 mph when the sign has the numbers six zero on it? Learn the difference between “malum prohjibidum” and “malum in se”. Eighty is malum in se, UNLESS the speed was so unsafe it CAUSES a crash.. ice, heavy rain, crowded trffic and I spook someoone into doing something stupid (they are lulled to sleep by the excessively slow posted limits) SOmetimes driving at 80 is safer than at theold Double Nickel Shuffle. On a long trip I am at the wheel for far less time, and am more alert because the world is not passing by at turtle warp.

So any copper giving ANYONE a warning/pass for something techinically “illegal” but not dangerous, that is just fine. Speaking of “fine”, cops are NOT revenue generators. They are ostensibly there to keep the roads safe. But they spend most of their time collecting revenue for piddly stufff, and spending hundreds of hours “investigating” accidents and writing reams of useless reports )at a cost to WE the taxpayers of in excess of a hindred bux an hour, each.

I’ve lived in states where, when a guy is not a hazard even when doing something “illegal” they’re not concerned, and if they DI stop, they’re mostly trying to make sure the guy is wide awake and “all there”.

giving someone a pass or a warning is NOT “corrupt”. It IS doing his REAL job.

Can’t find reply buttons for all these posts, so my responses are likely to be out of order.

“HOWEVER, I sure am going to take you to task for your apparent attitude of “sure, it’s just fine if I’m disarmed on a traffic stop”. NO, it’s not just fine and I would have said so right then and there.” Fine. You go ahead and do that. What do you think that would have accomplished other than making the officer worry about his safety?

“It’s a dangerous move for the officer and the citizen.” Had his handling of the firearm been less than impeccable, I would have spoken up, politely. “It’s unnecessary handling of a firearm, first and foremost.” Perhaps that is a worry for someone not comfortable with firearms and firearm safety. “Second, that officer stopped you for speeding nothing more. He has absolutely no reason or RAS to disarm you and this crap about “officer safety” is just that, crap.” Two responses to that: First, about a year ago a state trooper pulled a citizen over for exactly the same reason as I was pulled over about eight miles further up the road from where the officer pulled me over. As the trooper approached the passenger side of the vehicle the driver fired through the passenger window and hit the officer in the right shoulder and forearm, then peeled away. The officer, bleeding profusely, managed to get back to his vehicle and call it in. The nearest hospital (and ambulance) was 13 miles away and the trooper decided to self-evacuate with a disabled arm (nerve damage) and trying to staunch the flow of blood. He made it, thank God, passing out on the E.R. floor at Banner. Other officers spotted the perp’s car roaring through the same town and a pursuit ensued involving about twenty State troopers, county Sheriff deputies, and town police officers. He lost it on a curve about thirty miles up the two-lane mountain road, wrecked it in a field, got out and tried to engage the officers, who shot him dead. The shot officer recovered after some time in the hospital. Don’t try to hand me this crap that “officer safety” is crap. Officer safety is a legitimate concern for him and a legitimate concern for me. I see no reason to throw my weight around and be an asshole over a minor, temporary, safety rule just because “I have a right to keep and bear arms and nobody’s gonna take it away from me.” That is dumb, counter-productive, and frankly, damned dangerous to the officer and to me. Secondly, politely and safely disarming someone known to be armed for the duration of a traffic stop is a department protocol. It was mandatory for the officer to do it. I recognize that and respect that the officer doesn’t have anything to say about it. “No police officer is familiar with every firearm made or how they operate.” I am happy to instruct them if necessary. It isn’t rocket science, and the officers I know around here are pretty bright. “Some of them are barely competent operating their own let alone “sliding across a seat” and disarming you.” That’s a strange thing to say. No one slid across any seat to disarm me. My wife was in the passenger seat and her mother was in the back seat. They remained safe during the stop, which might not have been the case had I given the officer a ration of unnecessary bull—it. “You need to really rethink your whole attitude on this.” I would suggest that might be a good idea for you. I don’t know where you are or what the cops are like where you are, but you seem awfully paranoid that an officer with no more sinister agenda than going home alive at the end of his shift needs to be told off by a citizen because your rights are more important than his life. If the officers here start getting pushy, I can get pushy too, but I will do it in the newspapers and in the courts. Not at the side of the road.

“Don, Cops do have discretion on traffic stops.” Sure, they do. But no more discretion for fellow officers than for anyone else. You may give civilian citizens a break, but you indicated you ALWAYS give fellow officers a break. That’s how department corruption starts. “To equate a violation and a felony burglary in the same sentence is insane.” Not really. That’s where corruption starts. First it is “professional courtesy” to your fellow officers who do five, ten, fifteen over the speed limit. Twenty? Thirty? Then it is professional courtesy when the officer you pull over smells of alcohol, or pot – I mean, after all, he has a wife and kids to support; you don’t want to wreck his career. Then an officer does exactly the right thing and lets his girlfriend drive because he has had a drink or two, and the girlfriend pulls out in front of a cop responding to a call doing 50 miles an hour in a 25 zone – no lights or siren – and then his call is cancelled, so he backs off, lets her pass him, and pulls her over because she pulled out in front of him when he was still a couple of hundred feet away from her. At 25, that would have been plenty. At 50, it was close. And the officer riding with the girl was prohibited by his watch commander from testifying at her court hearing. That’s the Mafia code of silence, Carlo! (That happened, btw, the girl was my daughter and her boyfriend was the cop with her. I threatened the watch commander with a subpoena if he didn’t let his officer testify, and he relented only on condition the boyfriend had to list his occupation as supermarket accountant [his part-time job], and not as an officer. I collected data, measurements, etc. and beat the case in traffic court in spite of the fact the judge misread my diagram and chewed my daughter out, and then, after he closed, I pointed out his error and he said, “Oh! That makes it solid, then!” He turned to my daughter: “Cancel everything I just said.” That watch commander was corrupt. He was willing to let my daughter be convicted rather than allow his officer to tell the truth as a witness. That is WRONG, Carlo. I don’t need to go on here; my thesis should be obvious. Cops go corrupt because of the brotherhood, and the brotherhood becomes more important than their oath of commission. Go rent the movie “Serpico” from Netflix or buy it on Amazon. His fellow cops were willing to murder Serpico because he revealed they were staying warm in flophouses instead of conducting their patrols in two feet of snow on the graveyard shift. Murder is corrupt, Carlo, and that’s where corruption leads. “Warning tickets do not go on your record and are the same as a warning.” They do here. Not on your MVD record, but on the DPS computer. Your name, your DL, pops up twice in five years, the first time was a warning, the second time will be a ticket. “I take it from your statements you are not a cop and you have no idea what they can or cannot do.” No, I’m not a cop. But members of my extended family are cops; my firefighter daughter was married to a cop (now to an EMT firefighter); I was a member of the Deputy Auxiliary Police in L.A. when I lived there; I’ve associated with cops all my life; I am friends with the country Sheriff here and his chief deputy; I am friends with the chief of police and a few of the officers of the town of which my town is a suburb; I monitor their frequencies whenever I am on the road, and I have investigated the laws extensively in my Constitutional and right to keep and bear arms rabble-rousing. “Internal affairs would laugh a cop out of their offices if an officer came in and said Officer Don let three people go today. He is corrupt.” You have a bad habit of making strawman arguments, Carlo. I said you are corrupt if you don’t enforce the law equally on fellow officers as you do on civilians. In your efforts to discredit me, you are zeroing in on specific aspects that are covered by the general rule I stated. My thesis is that you should treat fellow officers as you do civilians. It is called equality under the law. It is the same principle as the principle that says civilians should have the right to keep and bear the same arms as the police, military, and law enforcement in general. “Don, know the law before you speak.” I do. “IF you go by your standard of what cops can and cannot do the Arizona cop is corrupt because he did not write you for the correct speed. He let you slide.” As I pointed out, he did not just “let me slide.” He wrote a warning which remains on the DPS database for five years. Besides which, I’m not complaining about officer discretion. I’m complaining about your baldfaced statement that you always show “professional courtesy” to fellow officers. Nothing wrong with letting someone slide, but treat civilians as you do fellow officers. “Getting pulled over for 72 in a 65 is chicken shit anyway.” Of course it is. But as I said, I was doing 80 and he had me on radar at 78. He let me slide because I cooperated and treated him decently, and because I wasn’t a habitual speeder. “I wrote more tickets in my department than anyone else and always gave at least 12 over before I pulled anyone over.” Good for you. “But I suppose you think that is corrupt but again it is up to our discretion not to some mythical fantasy you have about police procedures.” You suppose too much. You are flailing about, trying to rationalize the fact that you think “profession courtesy” is always justified for fellow officers and not civilians, and I called you on it. I’m sure you are a great officer, Carlo, but all I ask is that you think about what I said. There is ‘way too much corruption in the world, and police officers are not immune to it unless they take a firm stand against it and live by that stand.

“Your value set is more than a bit skewed. WHY are all those “swarms of officers’ out and about anyway?WHAT is theirfunction in society?” Their actual function is to protect the rights of the people. Just as an example, if that were not their primary function, there would be no point in them showing up at the scene of a collision, arranging medical transport for the victims if necessary, investigating the circumstances of the collision, writing an extensive report equivalent to a Master’s thesis on the cause(s) of the collision, submitting the report to the parties involved for their insurance to marvel over, and submitting the report to the courts for action if appropriate. Of course, they also investigate crimes, apprehend perpetrators, and provide reports to prosecutors, for the people have the right to be secure from depredation. “Ifyou answer ‘enforce the law’ ‘ you would be wrong. God established the civil magisgrate to “bear the sword against those who do harm”.” I’m surprised you would say that, because most ‘anti-police’ types claim they ARE there to enforce the laws of government regardless of ny ethical considerations, because “there are no more peace officers, don’tcha know; cops exist to oppress the people according to orders from the guvmint.” “There is absolutely NO precedent for today’s “law enforcement officers”. They are a holdover from the days of the tyrannical and selfish king who “did not appreciate” his peasants taking “his” deer on “his’ land. I will grant that if the harts were cattle he had purchased and managed as a source of income, he MIGHT have a point, as that would be stealing, and he would be “harmed”.” Well, that’s a real stretch I doubt anyone will take seriously, so I’ll let it go for now. “But tell me WHO is harmed when I am driving at 80 mph when the sign has the numbers six zero on it? Learn the difference between “malum prohjibidum” and “malum in se”. Eighty is malum in se, UNLESS the speed was so unsafe it CAUSES a crash.. ice, heavy rain, crowded trffic and I spook someoone into doing something stupid (they are lulled to sleep by the excessively slow posted limits)” The person harmed by you driving at 80 mph is the person you hit or force to take violent evasive action because at 60 mph it will take you 304 feet (slightly more than a football field) to stop your vehicle if someone misjudged your speed and pulls out in front of you, whereas at 80 mph your stopping distance will be 177 feet more, or 481 feet. And these are minimum stopping distances given excellent traction, excellent tires, excellent brakes – perhaps even ABS brakes – and a trained professional driver who doesn’t just slam on the brakes as hard as possible but maintains tire rotation just short of stopping rotation altogether. 80 mph in a 60 zone is “malum in se,” Tionico, because as a citizen of our free country and of the State of your residence, you have an enforceable duty, obligation, and responsibility to act in a manner that does not place your fellow citizens or their property at risk of destruction. Put simply, it is WRONG for you to act in a manner than threatens the life of every other human being on the road, near the road, or approaching the road.

“SOmetimes driving at 80 is safer than at theold Double Nickel Shuffle. On a long trip I am at the wheel for far less time, and am more alert because the world is not passing by at turtle warp.” There is absolute proof, Tionico, of Robert A. Heinlein’s observation that “Man is not a rational animal. Man is a rationalizing animal.” Your statement is puredee bullsh–, Tionico. At no time is 80-mph safer for you or anyone else than 55. At 55 your minimum stopping distance is 265 feet. At 80 your minimum stopping distance is 481 feet. If your alertness falls off at turtle warp, stop and have a hamburger. Don’t get behind the wheel again until you can be as alert as you need to be to be safe. “So any copper giving ANYONE a warning/pass for something techinically “illegal” but not dangerous, that is just fine.” I would question the provenance of that statement, since you have already indicated your inability to accurately determine what is dangerous and what is not. “Speaking of “fine”, cops are NOT revenue generators. They are ostensibly there to keep the roads safe. But they spend most of their time collecting revenue for piddly stufff, and spending hundreds of hours “investigating” accidents and writing reams of useless reports )at a cost to WE the taxpayers of in excess of a hindred bux an hour, each.” Last Christmas Eve, when a woman had a stroke, crossed three lanes of traffic and hit me head-on at a closing speed of 110-mph, the fact that the collision was her fault entirely, and not mine, is what caused her insurance to pay for my shattered-hip and ancillary injuries, and my totally-destroyed late-model Jeep Liberty, and $57,000 for helicopter evacuation and etc. The professional police report is what kept the case out of the courtroom and prevented me from having to pay nearly a half-million dollars for medical trauma care, helicopter transportation, ground ambulance transportation, and months of physical therapy. You are very naïve, Tionico, if you think police officers are useless when it comes to investigating collision. Inexcusably naïve. “I’ve lived in states where, when a guy is not a hazard even when doing something “illegal” they’re not concerned, and if they DI stop, they’re mostly trying to make sure the guy is wide awake and “all there”.” That’s nice, but I would have to assume the State referenced has a population about the size of Hollister, California. “giving someone a pass or a warning is NOT “corrupt”. Perhaps not, but if he always gives a pass to fellow police officers, and not always to civilians, then he is corrupt.

The FBI has been insidious cancer in America. Time to punch their ticket or regulate them to lab work only. Once an FBI person, they become little dictators with a gun and they use it indiscriminately. How many people have the killed that were innocent folks? I lost count.

My dear, sweet cousin did 40 years with the bueau and until before that time, each and every word that came out of her mouth was like Sweet Southern honey rolling off her tongue. After several years in the Bureau for character and demeanor changed. By the time she got out she was teaching drunken Sailors how to cuss and would make a marine sound like a sissy if they even tried! Semper Fidelis

I JUST found out lastnight (no shit) that J.Edgar Hoover was a homosexual ! I never knew that, probably FEW ever did….. They said his power over the F.B.I was due to what he “had” on the F.B.I. agents and officials, thus the fact that Hoover was gay never being known to the public due to the fear of internal F.B.I info getting out… I guess that STILL stands true to this day ! THEIR misdeeds, illegalities, skeletons kept behind their walls while they point fingers and investigate those outside of their walls only. Well Mr. Mueller, what is known but deeply hidden about YOU… Maybe some behind the F.B.I. wall is needed for him !

the homo used to dress up in a toto with make up ,lipstick,the work! he was a flaming sexual deviate,and yes it was said he had tons of dirt on congressmen,senators and president. oh wait,it’s really no different today,just look at the CIA,FBI now.

That is true only of appointed Chiefs, who are appointed on the basis of their willingness to carry the political water of the town council. Over 95% of the rank and file members believe in and support the civilian right to keep and bear arms.

Every time you open your mouth you just enforce how ignorant you are of the law. You have no clue what it is like being a cop. I was not generating revenue and was never told to do so. I liked my work. Throw all the Latin around you want you are still an ignorant ass. I hope every cop that reads this papers your ass all up and down you for being dumber than a shovel.

As with all liberals of the last century, their political views must always be held suspect because of their inherent bad moral character. They are the champions of infanticide, sexual perversion and rampant drug use among other character flaws.

The vast majority of Federal Law Enforcement Officers with few exceptions are nothing more than bureaucrats with guns who will do whatever they are told in order to advance their careers. They are not needed and are not Constitutional.

My dear, sweet cousin did 40 years with the bueau and until before that time, each and every word that came out of her mouth was like Sweet Southern honey rolling off her tongue. After several years in the Bureau for character and demeanor changed. By the time she got out she was teaching drunken Sailors how to cuss and would make a marine sound like a sissy if they even tried! Semper Fidelis

My parents lived both under the Nazis and the Soviets. Their respective “alphabet agencies” were the agents disarming those who didn’t agree with their enslavement policies and then murdering them to squelch opposition. The gun and what comes out of the barrel is all that keeps these “only ones” assholes in check. All you target shooters and deer hunters better be aware the real reason that tool is in your warm, live hands.